None of you understand what socialism even is.

Applesauce

theories are one thing, reality sometimes very different.  How many socialist countries are successful vs. how many have failed?  Even communism is a great idea on paper/theory.

Vaulk

@StrangeQuarkMatter

Well since this debate is about what Socialism "Is" then I'm willing to hear your examples of Socialism that currently "Is" being used effectively and subsequently how the Countries using Socialism are better than the United States in regards to Economics and Politics.  Go.

Applesauce

@Vaulk
My apologies I didn't get that from what I read.   I don't believe socialism works in reality as evidenced by no successful countries, barring any anomaly. 

someone234

@Applesauce He was talking to the original poster, not you.

Vaulk

@Applesauce

Oh no, there's a reference method on here for names @Applesauce, I assumed it would be understood that if I wasn't addressing anyone specifically then by default it would either be addressed to the OP or just a general statement.  My statement wasn't in response to yours at all and I clearly see your post as supporting the Con side of the argument against Socialism.  I edited the post to reflect that I'm talking to @StrangeQuarkMatter ...cheers.

Mr_Bombastic

@StrangeQuarkMatter I understand that it has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried,  and is directly responsible for untold human suffering. That's all I need to know. 

with_all_humility

I just do not foresee anyone giving up the ownership of their company or corporation.  Of course, the big question in all governments is who gets to make up the rules and control the military.  Power corrupts and I do not ever see a true socialist nation anytime in our generation or the generation thereafter. 

There are no countries that are 100 percent socialist, according to the Socialist Party of the United Kingdon

Most have mixed economies that incorporate socialism with capitalism, communism \], or both.

The following countries have a strong socialist system.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: The state provides health care, education, and pensions. But these countries also have successful capitalists. The top 10% of each nation's people hold more than 65 percent of the wealth. That's because most people don't feel the need to accumulate wealth since the government provides a great quality of life. 

Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea: These countries incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Mozambique, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania: These countries all expressly state they are socialist in their constitutions. Their governments run their economies. All have democratically elected governments.

Belarus, Laos, Syria, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Zambia: These countries all have very strong aspects of governance, ranging from healthcare, the media, or social programs run by the government.

Many other countries, such as Ireland, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Belgium, have strong socialist parties and a high level of social support provided by the government. But most businesses are privately owned. This makes them essentially capitalist. 

Many traditional economies use socialism, although many still use private ownership and therefore are more capitalist than socialist.

Erfisflat

You guys should look into what Gaddafi did for Libya. It makes you wonder why the UN went after him and murdered him. We are not in a capitalist democracy, we are in an oligarchy. Maybe the socialist countries don't last long enough to be compared to (as if that is a logical argument) because the WORLD is an oligarchy. Like NWO?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289

Erfisflat

Mr_Bombastic said:

@StrangeQuarkMatter I understand that it has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried,  and is directly responsible for untold human suffering. That's all I need to know. 

Or so you have been told.

MayCaesar

We do understand that socialism is defined by the public ownership of means of production; the problem is that you do not understand the implications of it. You think that the community owns production and fairly shares the product. Here is a few of a very long list of problems with it:

1. Not everyone wants to be controlled by the community and have to bow to it to get the resources they need; some prefer to be free instead.
2. A community can be one of the biggest tyrants, as, for example, such a seemingly innocent entity as housing cooperatives - small communities with dictatorship of the majority are bad enough, and the whole state being one such community is a malice.
3. "Fairly" depends on the subjective view, in this case forced by the society. I, for one, think that the fairest distribution of wealth is "Everyone holds whatever they can obtain". And I prefer to stick to my values, rather than the values of random people - which socialism does not allow.
4. I am an individualist. I cannot stand being controlled by others. Normally I can defend from others trying to control me due to the individual rights I am guaranteed. In socialism, I would not have this protection.

Socialism is just a tyranny of the majority, a rule of the mob. I am not sure why it is so hard for some to see how unappealing this system is to people with free spirit.

Even discarding simple arguments in economics demonstrating that socialism is, at least, an order of magnitude less effective economically than capitalism, this is simply a system I, and many others, do not want to live in, even (and especially) in its "ideal" implementation.

In capitalism, I am free to pursue my endeavors. I am free to choose what contracts to sign, I am free to choose who to interact with, I am free to choose what wealth to use for myself and what to spend on charity. Yes, capitalism does not reward everyone. It is possible to fail here. It is possible to be lucky or unlucky. It is possible to earn a lot of money by doing little, and it is possible to earn little by doing a lot.
But that is what makes it interesting. It is a very bright, colorful, diverse system. There are many aspects to it, many ways to succeed or fail, to make mistakes and to learn on them.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a grey, boring, monotonous system, suited best for conformists and those who we used to call "homo-soveticus" in times not so distant. It suppresses dissent by its own design, it washes out individuality and throws everyone into the same social-economical pot. I would rather die than have to live in such a place.

---

All these authoritarian ideologies - socialism, communism, fascism, nationalism, patriotism, isolationism, religion, shamanism, cultism - should go away and remain only as a reminder of history. There are many ways the current capitalism system dominating worldwide can be improved; putting chains on people is not one of them.

George_Horse

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

debate me about socialism and capitalism, not your romanticized fantasy of what capitalism is and your false idea of socialism based on anti-socialist propaganda you got from your right wing government.

What right wing government? Socialism is bollocks. Name one TRUE successful socialist country as of this current time. 

Erfisflat

George_Horse said:

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

debate me about socialism and capitalism, not your romanticized fantasy of what capitalism is and your false idea of socialism based on anti-socialist propaganda you got from your right wing government.

What right wing government? Socialism is bollocks. Name one TRUE successful socialist country as of this current time. 

I did address these in the response that you marked as irrelevant. I would go through@MayCaesar's post, but he has me muted because I know the earth is not a ball.

Alec

Capitalist USA vs Democractic socialist Scandinavia

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1me3ak-UNfyU3eshRYhDx8XHC4szfqMtdM1D_kUEBN2w/edit ;

George_Horse

Erfisflat said:

I did address these in the response that you marked as irrelevant. I would go through@MayCaesar's post, but he has me muted because I know the earth is not a ball.

Where? When I rated your post as "irrelevant" I said that because you continued on with non-related statements to the topic. Sorry!

Erfisflat

George_Horse said:

Erfisflat said:

I did address these in the response that you marked as irrelevant. I would go through@MayCaesar's post, but he has me muted because I know the earth is not a ball.

Where? When I rated your post as "irrelevant" I said that because you continued on with non-related statements to the topic. Sorry!

I gave an example of a socialist government, and gave a pretty good theory as to why they are not long lasting, with sources. All relevant to the topic.

MayCaesar

@Alec

Scandinavia is not in the slightest socialist. Economical activity is not controlled by the society, but by private individuals competing on a free market. Scandinavia does feature heavy social spending, but that social spending does not constitute socialism in any way. Social spending is funded from taxpayer's money, and that money is generated on a free market.
The Denmark prime minister even had to publicly refute Sanders' claims about those countries being socialist, explaining that their success is a result of people being free to pursue their dreams on a free uncontrolled market.

In fact, many economists believe that Scandinavia features a more pure capitalism, than even the US. Until the recent tax reform in the US, the US had a much higher corporate tax than any of the Scandinavian countries. Scandinavian countries also offer very strong incentives for private businesses and investments, such as tax exemptions, wide subsidies and tariff compensations. Farmers receive a wide financial assistance and cheap land offerings from the government.
Scandinavian countries support private businesses on a free market heavily, and that is why they can afford to get away with such high individual taxes and heavy social program funding: their thriving free market makes up for the loss in individual income and funds the governmental expenses.

The term "democratic socialism" is very misleading and does not describe those countries' economical systems, no matter how widely it is used nowadays.

Alec

MayCaesar

Can you site your sources on how Scandinavia isn't democratic socialist?  

piloteer

I know full well what socialism is. I reject every basis of it from top to bottom. I have no desire to work for the community. I have no desire to help anybody. My purpose on this earth is to, and for myself only! I embrace greed. I reject collectivism. Socialism does mean to take from people. It is legalized theft. If my idea of happiness is decedent wealth, then I should have the right to pursue that happiness.

MayCaesar

@Alec ;

Here is a decent review of the matter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#59b56b7474ad 

These countries have significantly fewer economical regulations than the US economy has. They have higher tax rates and, hence, heavier social governmental spending - but their markets are as free as the US markets, if not more so. 

For one, the US has one of the (if not the) most restrictive antitrust laws in the world. In, say, Nordic countries, on the other hand, corporations are mostly left to tend to themselves, no matter how far they grow.

While the extremely heavy personal income tax rates in Scandinavian countries do clog their economies significantly (and that might be the primary reason why they never have anything that seriously competes with the top US corporations, such as Google or Ford), it has little to do with socialism, democratic or not.

cheesycheese

with_all_humility said:

I just do not foresee anyone giving up the ownership of their company or corporation.  Of course, the big question in all governments is who gets to make up the rules and control the military.  Power corrupts and I do not ever see a true socialist nation anytime in our generation or the generation thereafter. 

There are no countries that are 100 percent socialist, according to the Socialist Party of the United Kingdon

Most have mixed economies that incorporate socialism with capitalism, communism \], or both.

The following countries have a strong socialist system.

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: The state provides health care, education, and pensions. But these countries also have successful capitalists. The top 10% of each nation's people hold more than 65 percent of the wealth. That's because most people don't feel the need to accumulate wealth since the government provides a great quality of life. 

Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea: These countries incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Mozambique, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania: These countries all expressly state they are socialist in their constitutions. Their governments run their economies. All have democratically elected governments.

Belarus, Laos, Syria, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Zambia: These countries all have very strong aspects of governance, ranging from healthcare, the media, or social programs run by the government.

Many other countries, such as Ireland, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Belgium, have strong socialist parties and a high level of social support provided by the government. But most businesses are privately owned. This makes them essentially capitalist. 

Many traditional economies use socialism, although many still use private ownership and therefore are more capitalist than socialist.

exactly we are talking about some aspects of socialism not communism

cheesycheese

For all you capitalists here is our view of socialism. Giving good quality of life to the poor and these are the 10 largely socialist but not communist nations that i'm offering as example.

Germany
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Italy
France
Canada
New Zealand
Australia

Now these like it or not are socialist stop your view that all developed nations are capitalist.
You are using a false dilemma saying that you can be capitalist or communist but not socialist.

cheesycheese

piloteer said:

I know full well what socialism is. I reject every basis of it from top to bottom. I have no desire to work for the community. I have no desire to help anybody. My purpose on this earth is to, and for myself only! I embrace greed. I reject collectivism. Socialism does mean to take from people. It is legalized theft. If my idea of happiness is decedent wealth, then I should have the right to pursue that happiness.

that makes you a sociopath

cheesycheese

piloteer said:

I know full well what socialism is. I reject every basis of it from top to bottom. I have no desire to work for the community. I have no desire to help anybody. My purpose on this earth is to, and for myself only! I embrace greed. I reject collectivism. Socialism does mean to take from people. It is legalized theft. If my idea of happiness is decedent wealth, then I should have the right to pursue that happiness.

you don't know full well what socialism is only your view of it which is wrong 

piloteer

"@cheesycheese

Prove that I don't know what socialism is.

cheesycheese

you believe that socialism is about higher taxes while they usually accompany socialism socialism means creating a nice life or the the poor

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese ;

Socialism has nothing to do with how the poor live. Also, one of my best friends lives in Germany; she is poor, and she is hardly having a "nice life" - she is much worse off than me, despite me being relatively poor by American standards.

cheesycheese said:

piloteer said:

I know full well what socialism is. I reject every basis of it from top to bottom. I have no desire to work for the community. I have no desire to help anybody. My purpose on this earth is to, and for myself only! I embrace greed. I reject collectivism. Socialism does mean to take from people. It is legalized theft. If my idea of happiness is decedent wealth, then I should have the right to pursue that happiness.

that makes you a sociopath

Socialist mentality in a nutshell: the desire to build a great life for oneself is sociopathic, but the desire to steal others' property is not.

cheesycheese

its because they said that that they have no desire to help others

piloteer

"@cheesycheese ;

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I'm struggling to keep my family fed. Socialism means that my taxes will go up and I will never get the chance to get out of the dismal economic class I'm in. Socialism means that I should be happy with what I got, and I should be happy because I'm helping society. Socialism means that "the struggle" is admirable and builds character, so I should just keep my mouth shut and be happy with what I got. So ya, I guess it's pretty easy for me to want to reject socialism in every manner! Shame on me for believing that we shouldn't be forced to stay in the economic class we were born into. 

George_Horse

cheesycheese said:

For all you capitalists here is our view of socialism. Giving good quality of life to the poor and these are the 10 largely socialist but not communist nations that i'm offering as example.

Germany
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Italy
France
Canada
New Zealand
Australia

Now these like it or not are socialist stop your view that all developed nations are capitalist.
You are using a false dilemma saying that you can be capitalist or communist but not socialist.

*posts list of countries with capitalist economies*

cheesycheese

Capitalist yes but they take care of the poor and that is what socialism is about

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

Capitalist yes but they take care of the poor and that is what socialism is about

By that definition, the US is a socialist country.

MayCaesar

cheesycheese said:

Capitalist yes but they take care of the poor and that is what socialism is about

So capitalism is the system that takes care of the poor the best after all? Who would have thought....

AmericanFurryBoy

Socialism robs people and ruins economies

piloteer

"@Cheesycheese ;

If somebody volunteers their time or money to help the poor, they're being righteous human beings, not socialists. I think it would offend them if you called them socialists.